THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S MURASOLIMARAN FAMILY TRU

T.C.A.No.425 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.425 of 2018 AND C.M.P.No.9611 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

.. Appellant Vs. M/s.Murasoli Maran Family Trust No.4, II Avenue, Boat Club Road R.A.Puram, Chennai 600 028 PAN : AAA TM0863H .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2664/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar

Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Ms.N.Sneha for Mr.J.Ravindran 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.425 of 2018 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2664/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2006-07, by raising the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit u/s.161 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is to be allowed especially when the Trust has supposedly ceased to exists? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the Trust is to be assessed as AOP at the maximum marginal rate as provided u/s.167 of the Income Tax Act when only one Trustee was available and two beneficiaries who attended the meeting had passed a resolution which is invalid based on which no benefits can be granted? 3. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper by holding that 3 trustees were present on the date of passing of the resolution which fact is factually incorrect and wrong and is contrary to the covenants in the Trust Deed which clearly indicated that the 2 trustees who were on record alone were capable of passing valid resolutions and since only one trustee attended the meeting when the resolutions were passed they could not acted upon and therefore were invalid?” 2. When this matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.425 of 2018 appearing for the respondent/assessee submitted that during the pendency of this tax case appeal, the assessee has availed the benefit conferred under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and filed necessary declarations, which were accepted and Form-5/order for full and final settlement of tax arrears, was also issued by the Income tax department, on 30.10.2021. The learned counsel has also filed Form-5 dated 30.10.2021 to that effect. 3. The aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee has also been fairly conceded by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/ Revenue. 4. In view of the subsequent development, this court is of the opinion that nothing survives for adjudication in this appeal. Recording the submission so made by the learned counsel on either side, this Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 17.08.2022 gya R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.425 of 2018 gya To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai 2.The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 1(3) Chennai 600 034 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Chennai 4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai Tax Case Appeal No.425 of 2018 17.08.2022 (2/2) 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis